weyes

ooooooo - you're bad ...

236 !?!?!?!?!? vic, i hope you're only experiencing technical difficulties and you're otherwise ok !

here's a little bit of a practical something-or-rather: season changes are a great time for clothing bargains! i haven't bought clothes in a while 'cause i've been so broke, but when i started shopping for my halloween costume (i have to spend money on that :goofy: !) i ran into a lot of sales and whatnot. and my costume this year's been relatively cheap because the perfect stuff that i need happened to be on sale . (i'm dressing up as a friend of mine .) so, seriously! check stuff out! tune in tomorrow.

i work at a camera shop/photo lab, and i was behind the counter with a co-worker, ringing someone up for his pictures. when i looked up from giving him his change, i saw a man i recognized. he was tall, carrying a lot of bags, and making complaining faces that i interpreted as "i wanna go home" or "we've bought too many things" - faces that one sees on customers who've been shopping all day (did i mention a lot of bags?). and i recognized the guy as a famous person, not someone i knew personally, so i tried to figure out who he was without staring too much. and when i placed him as anna nicole smith's lawyer/friend (for those who don't watch the show, he's with her all the time) howard stern (not the radio personality), i realized the gargantuan firgure in white had to be anna nicole. she turned around, and under her hat, there she was. and she's not just wide, she was extremely tall. my co-worker said she was wearing big heels - i didn't get a look at her feet - but she was above 6' 3", i'd say. i mean, she was the kind of size you really take note of. if someone makes me feel small, that's something; i'm a quarter of an inch shy of 5' 10" and more on the curvy side , so not feeling tall and feeling skinny was weird. on the last anna nicole show, she went shopping and asked for a dress in a 12, and i thought it was funny at the time. after seeing her in person, i wonder how she finds clothes at all . coolest of all, though, was that she seemed just as drugged-up and out of it as she does on the show. she was filling out a warranty card and she said to howard, "what's my address?" and she spoke s-l-o-w-l-y and sleepily, as she dragged her feet around... she bought 2 digital cameras (one being a totally wack but still $600 panasonic), a camera bag, a memory card, an extra warranty that covers everything that could possibly happen to a camera (which she'll probably need!), and, after being in our store for less than ten minutes, i'd say, she'd spent $1111. o, and anna nicole smith is not her given name.

where was it?

i heard nothing but good things about that movie, and i love andrea martin. i should go, huh?...

nope; that one's not very nice, as far as the sentiment is concerned, either . (but i like it, as smileys go !)

i was looking at the keri line, looking first for fragrance-free. the only one they had that was fragrance-free turned out to be for sensitive skin, so that sounded just right . it also listed as its selling points that it is fast absorbing and not greasy (sometimes the things that are specifically bragged about are true). so, i was all stoked about that, then looked and saw that all keri stuff was on sale (all curel was too, so it was a tough decision; curel wasn't that bad, i guess, and so many really are greasy). review pending .

i think you guys should start an "iraq debate" thread. but saleen, it's clear that you either did not read the bill, or did not understand it. i'll put the link to the bill, in full, up again. http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and right on, milano . all well-said.

two and a three and a seven and goin' down

some laundry detergents, but more often some fabric softeners. and it's a damn good thing i never found out the name of my ex's fabric softener, 'cause then i'd probably get myself in emotional jams... whenever i smell someone who uses that fabric softener, i go crazy, my mind goes blank, the whole bit - yummmmmm... seriously, kids. i'm not kidding. (and i really, really dislike perfume and cologne, except for the body shop's dewberry, and that every very long once in a while just because it reminds me of another time in my life and the best friend i ever had.)

me too ! carry on.

i hate when people delete everything. it's like re-writing history and messing it up --- it's gonna be a disaster, i tell you, like in "back to the future"! (and that movie was a disaster, too .)

not true!!! we used "dude" in high school, and i grew up in manhattan. i didn't know many people from the bronx, but kids i knew from manhattan, brooklyn, queens, and staten island all used it. and it wasn't just my high school, it was people i knew from all over.

i'll tell ya, gmc, i can't discuss politics/religion/social anything with people who are just plain ignorant. i'm just learning that 2 of my co-workers, well, i don't know the right words for it. they're homophobic, but also just don't seem to like what they think gay people must be like, since they don't care to get to know any. so there's some kind of not-liking-gay-people word that isn't coming to me right now . anyway, one of my co-workers was giving me some crap about, "it's a proven fact," as he waved his finger at me, "that the average number of sexual partners a straight person has in their lifetime is 7, and a gay person's is 400. it's true, they taught me that in school, and i challenge you to find me any book that proves me wrong. gay people are all about having sex all the time." there's nothing i wanna say to that. and i was talking to another co-worker about my very good friend, who happens to be a gay male. that only came up because i said i had a male friend, and my male co-worker said i must be in love or wanna have sex with him. i said i don't, and he's gay anyway. "why would you want to be friends with a gay guy?" he asked. "i don't get that. what's the point of that relationship?" this is where i walk away. with these people (and i don't know if you have to know my co-workers to know this), it doesn't matter what i say, anyway. they may be looking at me - and sometimes they don't even do that - but they sure don't hear anything i say. even when i don't agree with them, i still listen. or, at least, i used to. these discussions are pointless and really serve no purpose, so for me, they are a thing of the past .

pigeon-holing people is only hurtful and de-personalizing. when one classifies people as belonging to this group or that, those people are no longer individuals, but part of a group with one mind, one way of behaving, one set of beliefs - which really is inaccurate (and more). there's no need to label people, so why do it? tune in tomorrow.

rock on to that ! didn't mean to freak you out with the smiley; i was actually looking for another particular one and couldn't find it; this was my second choice .

well, kiddies, the house subcommitte decided to postpone voting on the RAVE Act (that's Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy), a real victory for concertgoers/clubbers/lounge and bar attendees/ravers/anyone on someone else's private property, really, the way it's written. its broad language could actually sentence you to fines of $250,000 or prison time for someone smoking weed in your backyard. the text of the RAVE Act is here: http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and below is an update about what's happening now with it, and what we need to do next - as it has only been, i repeat, postponed. i received it yesterday from the drug policy alliance. ================================================== ================ 1. RAVE Act Update 2. CAll Your Federal Candidates Today! Help the Alliance Complete The Drug Policy Voter Guide ================================================== ================ RAVE ACT UPDATE Last week we asked our supporters to call Members of the House Subcommittee on Crime and request they vote against the RAVE Act or postpone consideration of the bill. We are happy to report that the Subcommittee decided not to vote on the RAVE Act, and that the bill is likely dead in the House for the year. While the Subcommittee's decision was based largely on the fact it is unlikely that the full House will have time to vote on the bill before Congress goes out of session, the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to slow down and stop this bill no doubt played a role. While we are not out of the water yet (the Senate may still consider the RAVE Act this week, and Congress may be back in December and could consider it then), the Drug Policy Alliance's national campaign has likely stopped the bill for the year. We are very thankful to all our supporters who called their elected officials and educated them on the dangers of the RAVE Act. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Although the Subcommittee did not vote on the RAVE Act, it did hold a public hearing on the bill. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified against the RAVE Act and made a great case that the RAVE Act and the existing crack house law have problems. A number of Members expressed concerns about the RAVE Act, including Rep. Bobby Scott, Ranking Members on the Subcommittee. Boyd's testimony can be read at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/boyd2002.cfm If we have sent you this e-mail, it's because you have signed up to receive legislative updates and action alerts. We would like to encourage you to sign up to receive our weekly e-newsletter. This newsletter is sent out every Thursday and updates our supporters on the status of drug policy reform around the country and around the world. To sign up to receive our free e-newsletter, go to: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/...ubscription.asp __________________________________________________ ___________________ CALL YOUR FEDERAL CANDIDATE TODAY This year, drug policy advocates are facing one of the most critical election seasons ever. That's why the Drug Policy Alliance has initiated the first-ever voters guide devoted to drug policy this year. In order to get a majority of candidates to answer, they need to hear from you, their constituents! That's why we are asking our members and supporters to contact every candidate in the country who has not answered the questionnaire to date. Here's what to do: 1) Call their offices! Click here to find out the phone number of candidates near you: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/10_16_02candidates.cfm 2) As a constituent, tell them that drug policy issues are important to you and that you request (sometimes demand) they fill out Drug Policy Alliance's voters guide questionnaire. 3) Explain that you will likely vote based on their responses, or lack there of. 4) Tell them that the survey can be easily filled in less than five minutes by returning it via fax to (202)216-0986, by filling it out online, or by calling us to fill it out orally. 5) Every candidate should have received a copy via email, fax, or both; but if they did not, have them contact our offices immediately by emailing our project coordinator Chris Mulligan at cmulligan@drugpolicy.org or by calling (202)216-0035 x 201. 6) Finally, explain that as a concerned voter in their district, refusal to answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Drug policy reform is increasingly present in the political mainstream. Since 1996 voters and state governments have enacted almost 150 notable drug policy reforms in 46 states. 46 of the 143 reforms were enacted in 2001 alone; and 2002 is proving to be another reform-driven year, with 14 reforms enacted as of August. This survey will serve as a barometer for congressional candidates on these hot-button issues. Constituents deserve to know how candidates feel about these issues and with your help we can accomplish this. So, start calling!

well, kiddies, the house subcommitte decided to postpone voting on the RAVE Act (that's Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy), a real victory for concertgoers/clubbers/lounge and bar attendees/ravers/anyone on someone else's private property, really, the way it's written. its broad language could actually sentence you to fines of $250,000 or prison time for someone smoking weed in your backyard. the text of the RAVE Act is here: http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and below is an update about what's happening now with it, and what we need to do next - as it has only been, i repeat, postponed. i received it yesterday from the drug policy alliance. ================================================== ================ 1. RAVE Act Update 2. CAll Your Federal Candidates Today! Help the Alliance Complete The Drug Policy Voter Guide ================================================== ================ RAVE ACT UPDATE Last week we asked our supporters to call Members of the House Subcommittee on Crime and request they vote against the RAVE Act or postpone consideration of the bill. We are happy to report that the Subcommittee decided not to vote on the RAVE Act, and that the bill is likely dead in the House for the year. While the Subcommittee's decision was based largely on the fact it is unlikely that the full House will have time to vote on the bill before Congress goes out of session, the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to slow down and stop this bill no doubt played a role. While we are not out of the water yet (the Senate may still consider the RAVE Act this week, and Congress may be back in December and could consider it then), the Drug Policy Alliance's national campaign has likely stopped the bill for the year. We are very thankful to all our supporters who called their elected officials and educated them on the dangers of the RAVE Act. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Although the Subcommittee did not vote on the RAVE Act, it did hold a public hearing on the bill. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified against the RAVE Act and made a great case that the RAVE Act and the existing crack house law have problems. A number of Members expressed concerns about the RAVE Act, including Rep. Bobby Scott, Ranking Members on the Subcommittee. Boyd's testimony can be read at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/boyd2002.cfm If we have sent you this e-mail, it's because you have signed up to receive legislative updates and action alerts. We would like to encourage you to sign up to receive our weekly e-newsletter. This newsletter is sent out every Thursday and updates our supporters on the status of drug policy reform around the country and around the world. To sign up to receive our free e-newsletter, go to: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/...ubscription.asp __________________________________________________ ___________________ CALL YOUR FEDERAL CANDIDATE TODAY This year, drug policy advocates are facing one of the most critical election seasons ever. That's why the Drug Policy Alliance has initiated the first-ever voters guide devoted to drug policy this year. In order to get a majority of candidates to answer, they need to hear from you, their constituents! That's why we are asking our members and supporters to contact every candidate in the country who has not answered the questionnaire to date. Here's what to do: 1) Call their offices! Click here to find out the phone number of candidates near you: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/10_16_02candidates.cfm 2) As a constituent, tell them that drug policy issues are important to you and that you request (sometimes demand) they fill out Drug Policy Alliance's voters guide questionnaire. 3) Explain that you will likely vote based on their responses, or lack there of. 4) Tell them that the survey can be easily filled in less than five minutes by returning it via fax to (202)216-0986, by filling it out online, or by calling us to fill it out orally. 5) Every candidate should have received a copy via email, fax, or both; but if they did not, have them contact our offices immediately by emailing our project coordinator Chris Mulligan at cmulligan@drugpolicy.org or by calling (202)216-0035 x 201. 6) Finally, explain that as a concerned voter in their district, refusal to answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Drug policy reform is increasingly present in the political mainstream. Since 1996 voters and state governments have enacted almost 150 notable drug policy reforms in 46 states. 46 of the 143 reforms were enacted in 2001 alone; and 2002 is proving to be another reform-driven year, with 14 reforms enacted as of August. This survey will serve as a barometer for congressional candidates on these hot-button issues. Constituents deserve to know how candidates feel about these issues and with your help we can accomplish this. So, start calling!

well, kiddies, the house subcommitte decided to postpone voting on the RAVE Act (that's Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy), a real victory for concertgoers/clubbers/lounge and bar attendees/ravers/anyone on someone else's private property, really, the way it's written. its broad language could actually sentence you to fines of $250,000 or prison time for someone smoking weed in your backyard. the text of the RAVE Act is here: http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and below is an update about what's happening now with it, and what we need to do next - as it has only been, i repeat, postponed. i received it yesterday from the drug policy alliance. ================================================== ================ 1. RAVE Act Update 2. CAll Your Federal Candidates Today! Help the Alliance Complete The Drug Policy Voter Guide ================================================== ================ RAVE ACT UPDATE Last week we asked our supporters to call Members of the House Subcommittee on Crime and request they vote against the RAVE Act or postpone consideration of the bill. We are happy to report that the Subcommittee decided not to vote on the RAVE Act, and that the bill is likely dead in the House for the year. While the Subcommittee's decision was based largely on the fact it is unlikely that the full House will have time to vote on the bill before Congress goes out of session, the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to slow down and stop this bill no doubt played a role. While we are not out of the water yet (the Senate may still consider the RAVE Act this week, and Congress may be back in December and could consider it then), the Drug Policy Alliance's national campaign has likely stopped the bill for the year. We are very thankful to all our supporters who called their elected officials and educated them on the dangers of the RAVE Act. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Although the Subcommittee did not vote on the RAVE Act, it did hold a public hearing on the bill. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified against the RAVE Act and made a great case that the RAVE Act and the existing crack house law have problems. A number of Members expressed concerns about the RAVE Act, including Rep. Bobby Scott, Ranking Members on the Subcommittee. Boyd's testimony can be read at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/boyd2002.cfm If we have sent you this e-mail, it's because you have signed up to receive legislative updates and action alerts. We would like to encourage you to sign up to receive our weekly e-newsletter. This newsletter is sent out every Thursday and updates our supporters on the status of drug policy reform around the country and around the world. To sign up to receive our free e-newsletter, go to: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/...ubscription.asp __________________________________________________ ___________________ CALL YOUR FEDERAL CANDIDATE TODAY This year, drug policy advocates are facing one of the most critical election seasons ever. That's why the Drug Policy Alliance has initiated the first-ever voters guide devoted to drug policy this year. In order to get a majority of candidates to answer, they need to hear from you, their constituents! That's why we are asking our members and supporters to contact every candidate in the country who has not answered the questionnaire to date. Here's what to do: 1) Call their offices! Click here to find out the phone number of candidates near you: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/10_16_02candidates.cfm 2) As a constituent, tell them that drug policy issues are important to you and that you request (sometimes demand) they fill out Drug Policy Alliance's voters guide questionnaire. 3) Explain that you will likely vote based on their responses, or lack there of. 4) Tell them that the survey can be easily filled in less than five minutes by returning it via fax to (202)216-0986, by filling it out online, or by calling us to fill it out orally. 5) Every candidate should have received a copy via email, fax, or both; but if they did not, have them contact our offices immediately by emailing our project coordinator Chris Mulligan at cmulligan@drugpolicy.org or by calling (202)216-0035 x 201. 6) Finally, explain that as a concerned voter in their district, refusal to answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Drug policy reform is increasingly present in the political mainstream. Since 1996 voters and state governments have enacted almost 150 notable drug policy reforms in 46 states. 46 of the 143 reforms were enacted in 2001 alone; and 2002 is proving to be another reform-driven year, with 14 reforms enacted as of August. This survey will serve as a barometer for congressional candidates on these hot-button issues. Constituents deserve to know how candidates feel about these issues and with your help we can accomplish this. So, start calling!

well, kiddies, the house subcommitte decided to postpone voting on the RAVE Act (that's Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy), a real victory for concertgoers/clubbers/lounge and bar attendees/ravers/anyone on someone else's private property, really, the way it's written. its broad language could actually sentence you to fines of $250,000 or prison time for someone smoking weed in your backyard. the text of the RAVE Act is here: http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and below is an update about what's happening now with it, and what we need to do next - as it has only been, i repeat, postponed. i received it yesterday from the drug policy alliance. ================================================== ================ 1. RAVE Act Update 2. CAll Your Federal Candidates Today! Help the Alliance Complete The Drug Policy Voter Guide ================================================== ================ RAVE ACT UPDATE Last week we asked our supporters to call Members of the House Subcommittee on Crime and request they vote against the RAVE Act or postpone consideration of the bill. We are happy to report that the Subcommittee decided not to vote on the RAVE Act, and that the bill is likely dead in the House for the year. While the Subcommittee's decision was based largely on the fact it is unlikely that the full House will have time to vote on the bill before Congress goes out of session, the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to slow down and stop this bill no doubt played a role. While we are not out of the water yet (the Senate may still consider the RAVE Act this week, and Congress may be back in December and could consider it then), the Drug Policy Alliance's national campaign has likely stopped the bill for the year. We are very thankful to all our supporters who called their elected officials and educated them on the dangers of the RAVE Act. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Although the Subcommittee did not vote on the RAVE Act, it did hold a public hearing on the bill. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified against the RAVE Act and made a great case that the RAVE Act and the existing crack house law have problems. A number of Members expressed concerns about the RAVE Act, including Rep. Bobby Scott, Ranking Members on the Subcommittee. Boyd's testimony can be read at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/boyd2002.cfm If we have sent you this e-mail, it's because you have signed up to receive legislative updates and action alerts. We would like to encourage you to sign up to receive our weekly e-newsletter. This newsletter is sent out every Thursday and updates our supporters on the status of drug policy reform around the country and around the world. To sign up to receive our free e-newsletter, go to: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/...ubscription.asp __________________________________________________ ___________________ CALL YOUR FEDERAL CANDIDATE TODAY This year, drug policy advocates are facing one of the most critical election seasons ever. That's why the Drug Policy Alliance has initiated the first-ever voters guide devoted to drug policy this year. In order to get a majority of candidates to answer, they need to hear from you, their constituents! That's why we are asking our members and supporters to contact every candidate in the country who has not answered the questionnaire to date. Here's what to do: 1) Call their offices! Click here to find out the phone number of candidates near you: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/10_16_02candidates.cfm 2) As a constituent, tell them that drug policy issues are important to you and that you request (sometimes demand) they fill out Drug Policy Alliance's voters guide questionnaire. 3) Explain that you will likely vote based on their responses, or lack there of. 4) Tell them that the survey can be easily filled in less than five minutes by returning it via fax to (202)216-0986, by filling it out online, or by calling us to fill it out orally. 5) Every candidate should have received a copy via email, fax, or both; but if they did not, have them contact our offices immediately by emailing our project coordinator Chris Mulligan at cmulligan@drugpolicy.org or by calling (202)216-0035 x 201. 6) Finally, explain that as a concerned voter in their district, refusal to answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Drug policy reform is increasingly present in the political mainstream. Since 1996 voters and state governments have enacted almost 150 notable drug policy reforms in 46 states. 46 of the 143 reforms were enacted in 2001 alone; and 2002 is proving to be another reform-driven year, with 14 reforms enacted as of August. This survey will serve as a barometer for congressional candidates on these hot-button issues. Constituents deserve to know how candidates feel about these issues and with your help we can accomplish this. So, start calling!

well, kiddies, the house subcommitte decided to postpone voting on the RAVE Act (that's Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy), a real victory for concertgoers/clubbers/lounge and bar attendees/ravers/anyone on someone else's private property, really, the way it's written. its broad language could actually sentence you to fines of $250,000 or prison time for someone smoking weed in your backyard. the text of the RAVE Act is here: http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and below is an update about what's happening now with it, and what we need to do next - as it has only been, i repeat, postponed. i received it yesterday from the drug policy alliance. ================================================== ================ 1. RAVE Act Update 2. CAll Your Federal Candidates Today! Help the Alliance Complete The Drug Policy Voter Guide ================================================== ================ RAVE ACT UPDATE Last week we asked our supporters to call Members of the House Subcommittee on Crime and request they vote against the RAVE Act or postpone consideration of the bill. We are happy to report that the Subcommittee decided not to vote on the RAVE Act, and that the bill is likely dead in the House for the year. While the Subcommittee's decision was based largely on the fact it is unlikely that the full House will have time to vote on the bill before Congress goes out of session, the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to slow down and stop this bill no doubt played a role. While we are not out of the water yet (the Senate may still consider the RAVE Act this week, and Congress may be back in December and could consider it then), the Drug Policy Alliance's national campaign has likely stopped the bill for the year. We are very thankful to all our supporters who called their elected officials and educated them on the dangers of the RAVE Act. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Although the Subcommittee did not vote on the RAVE Act, it did hold a public hearing on the bill. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified against the RAVE Act and made a great case that the RAVE Act and the existing crack house law have problems. A number of Members expressed concerns about the RAVE Act, including Rep. Bobby Scott, Ranking Members on the Subcommittee. Boyd's testimony can be read at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/boyd2002.cfm If we have sent you this e-mail, it's because you have signed up to receive legislative updates and action alerts. We would like to encourage you to sign up to receive our weekly e-newsletter. This newsletter is sent out every Thursday and updates our supporters on the status of drug policy reform around the country and around the world. To sign up to receive our free e-newsletter, go to: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/...ubscription.asp __________________________________________________ ___________________ CALL YOUR FEDERAL CANDIDATE TODAY This year, drug policy advocates are facing one of the most critical election seasons ever. That's why the Drug Policy Alliance has initiated the first-ever voters guide devoted to drug policy this year. In order to get a majority of candidates to answer, they need to hear from you, their constituents! That's why we are asking our members and supporters to contact every candidate in the country who has not answered the questionnaire to date. Here's what to do: 1) Call their offices! Click here to find out the phone number of candidates near you: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/10_16_02candidates.cfm 2) As a constituent, tell them that drug policy issues are important to you and that you request (sometimes demand) they fill out Drug Policy Alliance's voters guide questionnaire. 3) Explain that you will likely vote based on their responses, or lack there of. 4) Tell them that the survey can be easily filled in less than five minutes by returning it via fax to (202)216-0986, by filling it out online, or by calling us to fill it out orally. 5) Every candidate should have received a copy via email, fax, or both; but if they did not, have them contact our offices immediately by emailing our project coordinator Chris Mulligan at cmulligan@drugpolicy.org or by calling (202)216-0035 x 201. 6) Finally, explain that as a concerned voter in their district, refusal to answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Drug policy reform is increasingly present in the political mainstream. Since 1996 voters and state governments have enacted almost 150 notable drug policy reforms in 46 states. 46 of the 143 reforms were enacted in 2001 alone; and 2002 is proving to be another reform-driven year, with 14 reforms enacted as of August. This survey will serve as a barometer for congressional candidates on these hot-button issues. Constituents deserve to know how candidates feel about these issues and with your help we can accomplish this. So, start calling!

well, kiddies, the house subcommitte decided to postpone voting on the RAVE Act (that's Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy), a real victory for concertgoers/clubbers/lounge and bar attendees/ravers/anyone on someone else's private property, really, the way it's written. its broad language could actually sentence you to fines of $250,000 or prison time for someone smoking weed in your backyard. the text of the RAVE Act is here: http://www.emdef.org/s2633/ and below is an update about what's happening now with it, and what we need to do next - as it has only been, i repeat, postponed. i received it yesterday from the drug policy alliance. ================================================== ================ 1. RAVE Act Update 2. CAll Your Federal Candidates Today! Help the Alliance Complete The Drug Policy Voter Guide ================================================== ================ RAVE ACT UPDATE Last week we asked our supporters to call Members of the House Subcommittee on Crime and request they vote against the RAVE Act or postpone consideration of the bill. We are happy to report that the Subcommittee decided not to vote on the RAVE Act, and that the bill is likely dead in the House for the year. While the Subcommittee's decision was based largely on the fact it is unlikely that the full House will have time to vote on the bill before Congress goes out of session, the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to slow down and stop this bill no doubt played a role. While we are not out of the water yet (the Senate may still consider the RAVE Act this week, and Congress may be back in December and could consider it then), the Drug Policy Alliance's national campaign has likely stopped the bill for the year. We are very thankful to all our supporters who called their elected officials and educated them on the dangers of the RAVE Act. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Although the Subcommittee did not vote on the RAVE Act, it did hold a public hearing on the bill. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, testified against the RAVE Act and made a great case that the RAVE Act and the existing crack house law have problems. A number of Members expressed concerns about the RAVE Act, including Rep. Bobby Scott, Ranking Members on the Subcommittee. Boyd's testimony can be read at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/boyd2002.cfm If we have sent you this e-mail, it's because you have signed up to receive legislative updates and action alerts. We would like to encourage you to sign up to receive our weekly e-newsletter. This newsletter is sent out every Thursday and updates our supporters on the status of drug policy reform around the country and around the world. To sign up to receive our free e-newsletter, go to: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/...ubscription.asp __________________________________________________ ___________________ CALL YOUR FEDERAL CANDIDATE TODAY This year, drug policy advocates are facing one of the most critical election seasons ever. That's why the Drug Policy Alliance has initiated the first-ever voters guide devoted to drug policy this year. In order to get a majority of candidates to answer, they need to hear from you, their constituents! That's why we are asking our members and supporters to contact every candidate in the country who has not answered the questionnaire to date. Here's what to do: 1) Call their offices! Click here to find out the phone number of candidates near you: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/10_16_02candidates.cfm 2) As a constituent, tell them that drug policy issues are important to you and that you request (sometimes demand) they fill out Drug Policy Alliance's voters guide questionnaire. 3) Explain that you will likely vote based on their responses, or lack there of. 4) Tell them that the survey can be easily filled in less than five minutes by returning it via fax to (202)216-0986, by filling it out online, or by calling us to fill it out orally. 5) Every candidate should have received a copy via email, fax, or both; but if they did not, have them contact our offices immediately by emailing our project coordinator Chris Mulligan at cmulligan@drugpolicy.org or by calling (202)216-0035 x 201. 6) Finally, explain that as a concerned voter in their district, refusal to answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Drug policy reform is increasingly present in the political mainstream. Since 1996 voters and state governments have enacted almost 150 notable drug policy reforms in 46 states. 46 of the 143 reforms were enacted in 2001 alone; and 2002 is proving to be another reform-driven year, with 14 reforms enacted as of August. This survey will serve as a barometer for congressional candidates on these hot-button issues. Constituents deserve to know how candidates feel about these issues and with your help we can accomplish this. So, start calling!